Goldman Sachs shows that Regional Bank Peers for BBT are BNS,IMI, BMO and WBK. This is off the Waterhouse reseach site. Comparisons are from Dec.31,1998 through Dec.9,2003.
IMI -25% BBT -5% 5year average
BMO +107% dividend 2.2%
This is strictly stock price changes, but 3 of the four has an average 5 year dividend rate higher than BBT's. So three of the four has an overall higher return rate even without the stock price increases for the last five years.
I know, I know some of you will say these are not fair comparisons. So are you saying that the only fair comparsions are what BBT says are comparables? All the comparables I have posted are from some other source WSJ,AOL or Waterhouse(Goldman Sachs)sites and not just something I made up.
There is nothing to indicate that this stock has not had poor price performance the last five years. Little or not return to the shareholders in a five year period makes any stock a dog in my opinion.
Still looking for answers,
Thanks for the information, I did indeed check the Philly Bank Index you suggested. It appears that BBT under performed this index on the 1 year, 2 year and 5 year charts. In other words their stock shares have not even matched the average for these 24 banks that make up this index. Note they state that the index consists of 24 of the nations best known money center and super-regional BANKS.
On your post #6716 and also post #6722 you stated that Golden West Financial symbol GDW was not a comparable to BBT that it was a thrift. According to what I read GDW is one of the 24 banks included in the Philly Index.
Are you saying that GDW is a comparable? If not then the KBI index can't be used either as GDW is included in it too. Think the citeria is the basically the same for both indexes.
Hope your day has gone well,
I know you just will not believe this, but believe it or not I can read a chart. Mike did a great job on the charts back on post #6733. However, if you had done a little more homework you might have discovered that BIX on the charts only goes back to May,2002.
Kind of hard to make a 5 year comparison when the symbol you are comparing with only goes back a year and a half. By the way will you concede that for this short time period that BBT has under performed BIX? So in other words BBT has not even met the average performance of what you say is their peer group for the last year and a half.
On your last comment about WSJ and Goldman I at least stated where my information was attained. Where are you getting yours other then quoting BBT's company line.
Thanks for the comparisons. Looks as if BB&T had 4 splits in the 80s. I say if a better bank can be found.....sell BB&T and go to it. In the long run BB&T will prove to be a sound bank and will pay regular dividends.
Jim, as an investor you should have a clear understanding of who the other competitors are by doing your own independent research. One option is to go to the FDIC website and identify the top markets that BBT are in and identify other banks that are in the same markets. You can also go to the SNL website to find banks ranked by total assets. Of course there are other ways too, but if you rely on the analysts, you're headed for trouble.
Bank of Nova Scotia? (BNS) - a Canadian bank
San Poalo (INI) - somewhere in Europe
Bank of Montreal (BMO) - a Canadian bank
Westpac Bank ADRs (WBK) - an Australian bank
Now I'm assuming that you still think that I'm on eggnog, but that was yesterday. How in the world can these non-U.S. banks be considered peers? Where in the world did you pull up this crap?
Look, I won't argue with charts of banks in the same COUNTRY or banking footprint that compete with BB&T, that if they perform better over time, fine. But to pull junk like this finding banks from who knows where, is just ignorance, pure and simple.
My input is over unless someone with intelligence like Stock or Fan have anything to say.
I think I have clearly indicated in all my posts where the source of all my comparisons were found. There has never been any attempt to deceive anyone as to their origins.
Glad to know that some of the posters on this board are smarter then the WSJ, the AOl Research site, Waterhouse and Goldman Sachs. However, if no one minds I think I'll believe what the experts say rather than some one whose only contribution is to say that it is not a fair comparison. Sure would like to know what basis and what companies are backing up their arguments other than JA and company.
Note I still have not gotten an answer to my question as to what is this company doing different than they have for the last five years? The best defense is a good offense. Attack what the other person says and offer nothing back that is fact based.
Please note that I was not the one who got personal first.
In any case there is an old saying that it takes a fool to argue with a fool. That being said I'll leave it at that for replying to post 6726 and 6727.
Hope everyone has better investing in 2004,